Hacker News Reader

Comment by Jasper_ | Hacker News Reader

Not only is it a terribly bad look, retaliation against workers organizing is against the law.

EDIT: Since people don't believe me: https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/retaliation.cfm

That law protects against retaliation only against certain protected actions by the employees. Nothing these Google employees did is even close to being on that list. The Google employees simply didn't like what their company was doing and decided to take a very public action against it. There is nothing protected about that at all, whatsoever. I don't even think it would be covered if they were unionized.

The walkouts were organized to protest ongoing claims of sexual harassment and abuse. That is protected action. Namely, the second bulletpoint here: "communicating with a supervisor or manager about employment discrimination, including harassment"

You are correct. I can't edit my original comment anymore but found this explanation - https://www.law.com/corpcounsel/2018/11/01/when-a-walkout-hi...

Per another Wired article [1], they organized the walkout to protest sexual harassment:

> Thousands of Google employees and contractors around the globe—many of them women—briefly walked off the job Thursday to protest Google’s handling of sexual harassment claims and other workplace issues, and to demand more transparency around harassment incidents and pay levels at the company.

The aforelinked EEOC page [2] explicitly mentions that asserting your right to not be harassed is protected activity:

> communicating with a supervisor or manager about employment discrimination, including harassment

> Other acts to oppose discrimination are protected as long as the employee was acting on a reasonable belief that something in the workplace may violate EEO laws

[1] https://www.wired.com/story/google-walkout-just-latest-sign-...

[2] https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/retaliation.cfm

This is Google we're talking about - where, as shown in the Damore complaint, organized trolling groups were routinely cyber-harassing and cyber-bullying coworkers on company-provided spaces and "forums", often with the implied acquiescence of middle management, for purely political reasons. It's just harassment fest and the definition of a toxic work environment - and they got away with it. Sure, the shoe is now on the "other" foot so to say, but other than that what exactly has changed?

Breitbart is probably not the most authoritative source on Google's internal politics.

Funny that you should say that when I didn't mention Breitbart at all! I referenced the extensive evidence provided by James Damore - formerly a relatively high-profile Google employee - and privately confirmed or corroborated to Damore by other Googlers or former Googlers, not all of whom were necessarily willing to come out publicly.

"Other acts to oppose discrimination are protected as long as the employee was acting on a reasonable belief that something in the workplace may violate EEO laws"

That's pretty vague. And nothing else on the government site supports protests. That's not any sort of normally protected activity in regards to labor laws. Plus, I think it's fairly common knowledge that if you walk out of your office to protest anything (your employer, the government, the weather, whatever), nearly everyone would say that you walking out is you not performing your job duties at that specific time. And I don't think Google or any other company has a written policy to take part in protests. The government's site seems to indicate that following the company's policies and HR practices with regards to raising the alarm bells at alleged/suspected improper activity cannot receive retaliation.

EDIT - I was wrong. It is protected. https://www.law.com/corpcounsel/2018/11/01/when-a-walkout-hi...

I don’t know whether a walkout would or wouldn’t be a protected activity. It’s a tricky question with a lot of moving parts. I suspect you don’t know either. If that’s the case, you ought to be more careful about giving legal advice in confidant and unconditional terms where that advice, if taken, could lead to adverse consequences for readers.

If you are attorney specializing in labor law and you think the above posts comport with your ethical obligations, then carry on I guess.

Documented as protected: https://www.law.com/corpcounsel/2018/11/01/when-a-walkout-hi...

I can’t read that article, but I would be shocked if any an attorney said in print that is was definitely protected without any kind of conditions or caveats the way the ancestor post did.

You're correct, IANAL, but is merely quoting an official EEOC page tantamount to giving legal advice? GGP said "Nothing these Google employees did is even close to being on that list", and I pointed out items on the list that were. I didn't intend for it to come across as legal advice.

You're wrong about this. The walkout organizers were engaging in concerted action to redress a specific workplace grievance, and that conduct is protected under US labor law.

Google is not allowed to retaliate, either by punishing them, or by offering positive incentives to others to not participate in the conduct.

Which is why any actions Google would take against the organizers would be especially carefully scrutinized. That's why I'm surprised- to take this action, Google HR would have to know they would be watched closely and likely end up with a court case (a skeptic might surmise that the protestors were hoping such a case would occur).

Effective retaliation turns a difficult HR and employee morale problem into a minor legal problem. A court case is a bad outcome for labor organizers—they can never hope to match the resources their employer can bring to bear, and the proceedings can last for years. For that reason, it's a good outcome for the employer, and why you see large companies using the tactic at the first sign of labor unrest.

White collar crime (like retaliation, or wage theft) is rarely tried or prosecuted for.

Violations of the NLRA are rarely criminal.

Is there any case where they've been criminal?

I'm not aware, but I'm always worried some lawyer is going to come and smite me with a fraud case where the NLRA was tangentially involved.

You are correct. I was wrong. I found an explanation of it but can no longer edit my original comment.

https://www.law.com/corpcounsel/2018/11/01/when-a-walkout-hi...

The NLRA is pretty complicated and it comes down to what you can get the NLRB to agree about, but this does qualify as protected concerted activity. Anything which is collective organizing in the interests of the employees w.r.t. working conditions is protected. Protesting gender discrimination is literally a text book case. I recommend "labor law for the rank and filer" as a nice introduction to the field.

You are correct. I can't edit my original comment anymore but found this explanation - https://www.law.com/corpcounsel/2018/11/01/when-a-walkout-hi...

You link only pertains to "asserting their rights to be free from employment discrimination including harassment", and none of the example bullet points cover a mass walk-out, or organizing/encouraging fellow employees to stop doing their jobs.

I suspect you're still right on the law due to other provisions - it's just that link, and section of the law, doesn't obviously cover what happened at Google. You can "communicate", and resist specific discriminatory/harassing actions, without stopping all other legitimate work for speeches & sign-carrying.

That one is just the cliff notes. From the more detailed guidance at https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/retaliation-guidance.cfm#...:

"Depending on the circumstances, calling public attention to alleged discrimination may constitute reasonable opposition, provided that it is connected to an alleged violation of the EEO laws. Opposition may include even activities such as picketing."

i.e. direct labor action is considered part of the right to communicate grievances.

Picketing on one's own time is still quite different than "not working during a normal workday". And now we're into situations where the particulars matter, as acknowledged by the more-tentative "may constitute" and "may include" phrasing of your new quote.

(There's probably better protection for their organizing and the walkout in labor-organizing law, rather than the non-discrimination/non-harassment statutes you're citing.)

This wasn't 'workers organizing' though, was it? I mean, the workers organized in order to protest this ethics board, but they wouldn't be punished for the organizing, but for publicly shitting on a company product?

If I work for a car company, and we come out with a car, and I go on record saying how crappy the car is and how no one should buy it - would that be a protected activity?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com